Ep. 2164 - The Democrats’ 2028 Frontrunner Is…AOC?!
50:48 Share

Folks, huge news happening over the weekend. Everything from AOC for president to Snow White totally bombing at the box office. First, if you want more from the Ben Shapiro Show on The Daily Wire, it is time to become a Daily Wire Plus member. Get member exclusive shows, ad-free streaming, early access to our new releases. Watch premium films and documentaries you're not going to find anywhere else. Connect with a community that shares your values, not one that cancels you for them. Watch anywhere you want.

Well, Democrats have a serious problem. President Trump's approval ratings maintain their status. He's somewhere close to 50%, which is higher than he has been nearly in his entire political career. His main policies are quite popular, ranging from craftsmanship

crackdowns on illegal immigration, which is a very popular position, to even his positions with regard to Doge. Again, most Americans are into cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, and Democrats really don't know how to deal with it. And Democrats who spend at least a moment in the real world know this. So Bill Maher, with whom I am friendly, but Bill is definitely a Democrat. He is not a Republican. Maher was on his show on Friday night, real time on HBO. And there he was mocking the Democrats over their absolute incompetence.

This state has almost 400,000 regulations. I just put in a new roof because the fire, I thought, oh, let's get a roof that's not going to burn up. Two inspections. Why are you inspecting my roof? It's my roof. If it falls on me, that's my problem.

And we're taxed more than any other state. People are leaving these kind of states for places where they're not, they feel the heavy breath of government on them. It's just, it's not that hard for Democrats to understand this, but they seem to be incapable of doing anything about it.

Maher, of course, is totally correct about this. And if you follow people's revealed preferences, meaning not what they say they like, but what they actually like, the feet are moving south. The feet are moving from blue to red. That'd be my family, be my company. And people are literally moving from blue areas to red areas because red areas are better to live. Charlemagne Dagad, the radio host, he says that the Democratic Party at this point is trashed.

If you're a Democrat, I'm going to tell you the worst thing that you could do right now. Speak for that party. OK, that party's brand is in such disarray. They have no ideology. The people that are actually governing, like the Josh Shapiro's, the Gretchen Whitner's, the Westmore's, y'all stay in your states and keep governing and doing the work. That's it. Distance yourself from all of that that's going on in D.C. Distance yourself from the party and speak for you.

He, by the way, is right that the party is totally toxic. I mean, he's wrong to cite Wes Moore and Gretchen Whitmer as examples of people who are doing an amazing job. But the reality is that Democrats have misgoverned at nearly every level of government. The Wall Street Journal has a piece over the weekend talking about the failures of Los Angeles, my old home city. Quote, the democratic mismanagement of America's big cities becoming a liability for the party. A shining example is Los Angeles, where city leaders this week announced a $1 billion budget hole owing to a slowing economy and soaring payouts to public unions.

City Administrative Officer Matthew Jabo told the council on Wednesday this year's extraordinary shortfall could necessitate thousands of layoffs. Mayor Karen Bass blamed the recent wildfires, extreme uncertainty in terms of federal funding, and downward national economic trends. In other words, blaming Trump. The reality is that the city's fiscal problems have been building up like dry tinder, and Ms. Bass has made them worse. And this, of course, is exactly right. Apparently, L.A.'s unemployment rate in December was 6% that is higher than any state and even Puerto Rico.

High taxes, burdensome regulations, the city's $17.28 an hour minimum wage, litigation abuse, shoplifting, another crime, raised business costs and insurance premiums, litigation abuses, busting the city's budget. Payouts totaled $240 million in the last fiscal year alone.

The city of Los Angeles is collapsing from within. So what are Democrats to do? Because their governance is really, really poor. And President Trump is moving incredibly fast. And it's very difficult for them to figure out what is the point of differentiation? Where do they want to put their chips?

Where is going to be the line of attack that they can use against President Trump and Republicans? And so Democrats are going to have to define exactly what they are. Now, there is a rule that has been put forward by the political commentator, another one of my friends, Matt Continetti, which I think is exactly right. If you're trying to scope out the future candidates of any party, the going rule for the last several decades has been

that the successful candidate, the successful presidential candidate first runs against his or her own party and then runs for the presidency. So President Trump is an excellent example of this. He came in 2016. He ran against every aspect of the Republican Party. He broke the Republican Party and then he took the presidency. Barack Obama did this in 2008. He overcame Hillary Clinton, who is considered the establishment pick, took over the party and then won. And so if you're looking at the Democratic Party right now, what exactly is the Democratic Party? Now, there are a few angles they could take.

There are a few angles that could be taken to take over the Democratic Party. Angle number one would be the better administrative angle. This would be the Bill Maher angle, or say the Ezra Klein, Derek Thompson angle in their new book, Abundance, which is a book basically about how Democrats ought to suggest that government actually is good at certain things and then should get a lot of regulations out of the way so government can build the Hoover Dam again, or government can build affordable housing without any of the environmental regulations, or build a bullet train, or whatever it is.

Now they can make that case. I think that case is relatively unsuccessful, but they could say, listen, we're good at administration. The problem is Democrats have a very bad record of administration as demonstrated by places like New York, places like Chicago, places like Los Angeles or Detroit. So that's problem number one. Problem number two is that most of the Democrat hardcore does not care about that stuff.

Most of the Democrat hardcore cares more deeply about the quote unquote moral issues in the country rather than just being good at administration. They don't understand that being a good administrator on the local or state level actually does have a moral component because if you wish to, for example, alleviate poverty, one of the best ways to do that is to provide a stable and useful local government. But Democrats have stopped believing that, at least the primary voting Democrats. And so now they are left with a couple of other angles. One is the

sort of DEI angle. That would be the idea that the Democratic Party stands for diversity, that really what the Democratic Party is about is re-centering the marginalized.

This would be the elevation of Kamala Harris, for example. This would be the attempt to elevate candidates of color at the expense of other candidates who might be better qualified or the, or by the way, elevating people like Pete Buttigieg on the basis of his sexual orientation to a presidential candidacy, not because he was good at fixing potholes in South Bend. He was not, but because he's gay, right? That would be the DEI Democrats. And that's certainly an angle. And there's a lot of support for that inside the Democratic Party. The problem is that's the angle they've been taking and it has been failing.

Democrats may double down on stupid if they do. They're unlikely to win back the presidency. According to a brand new poll from Morning Consult, Kamala right now has the support of 36 percent of Democrat primary voters. Next in line is Buttigieg, who's a 10 percent support. No other candidate on the list received double digit support in the early primary polling. Tim Walz, AOC and Gavin Newsom each have five percent support. Billionaire Mark Cuban and Governor Josh Shapiro each have four percent backing.

So part of that is going to be name recognition. Obviously, Kamala Harris has very high name recognition. She was the last Democratic presidential candidate, even if she lost to President Trump. So maybe it's that or maybe it's the Democrats who are trying to double down on DEI. That seems like that is likely to be an unsuccessful angle. However, they also cannot go back to sort of establishmentarian Democratic politics. The establishment has failed the Democratic Party and they know it, which is why Chuck Schumer is under serious fire right now.

Chuck Schumer was making his pitch for why he should continue to be sort of the leader of the Democratic congressional contingent on Meet the Press over the weekend. And it is just lackluster stuff. And our caucus is united in fighting Donald Trump every step of the way.

Our goal, our plan, which we're united on, is to make Donald Trump the quickest lame duck in modern history by showing how bad his policies are. He represents the oligarchs, as I said. He's hurting average people in every way. And we are, through oversight hearings, we're exposing what he's doing. Through the courts, which I mentioned,

We've had some real success in through legislation and through organizing in all the districts throughout the country.

Okay, so does that inspire? The answer there is no. Chuck Schumer is getting run over by the Congress, run by Republicans. While the possibility of a resurgent Bernie Sanders should scare everybody who has money in the stock market or, you know, money in general, in these uncertain economic times with tariff tensions, recession worries, stubborn inflation, it's no surprise that gold prices keep breaking records. Rather than watching from the sidelines during market volatility, consider taking some proactive steps to protect your savings. That's why many Americans are connecting with Birch Gold Group.

They've helped thousands of people convert existing retirement accounts into physical gold IRAs. One ring of gold might be a smart hedge against inflation or economic uncertainty for you. To learn about owning physical gold in a tax-advantaged account, text BEN to 989898. Birch Gold will send you a free information kit with no obligation. Their A-plus Better Business Bureau rating and numerous five-star reviews reflect why I recommend Birch Gold to help you protect your savings through gold investment. The economic challenges we're facing, they took decades to develop.

The real question is, how long will recovery take? What's it going to cost along the way? It is not going to be an easy economic road going forward in my own personal opinion. But then again, it rarely is. Text Ben to 989898. Connect with Birch Gold Group today. Diversification is just a smart business strategy. Text Ben to 989898 and get in touch with Birch Gold Group today. Also...

Let me tell you something, I never realized just how bad my old mattress was until I got my Helix mattress. You know that feeling where you wake up and your back is already griping? Well, that was me more often than not. Don't even get me started on how that old mattress turned into a heat trap at night. In fact, that mattress was so bad, like it started to sag in the... Anyway, since switching on over to Helix, I wake up feeling ready to take on even my busiest days and the craziest headlines. Here's what makes Helix different. They don't believe in one-size-fits-all sleep solutions. Instead, they use their sleep quiz to match you with a custom mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences.

Whether you sleep hot, need extra support for your back, or share your bed with a restless partner, Helix is a perfect mattress for you. And the reality is that my mattress, which is firm but breathable, is giving me better sleep quality. It can do the same for you because you'll get a mattress made just for you. Helix is offering right now an incredible March Madness sale. Visit helixsleep.com slash Ben, get 20% off site-wide. That's helixsleep.com slash Ben for 20% off site-wide. Again, just visit helixsleep.com slash Ben for this exclusive offer and start sleeping better today. That's helixsleep.com.

dot com slash Ben Helix sleep dot com slash Ben for 20 percent off site wide and a better sleep tonight. So what are Democrats left with? Democrats are basically left with the Bernie Sanders wing. Bernie Sanders led an insurgency originally against Hillary Clinton in 2016, which wounded her for the general election. Then, of course, he ran again in 2020 and really threatened to take over the party until Joe Biden and the Democratic establishment mobilized Jim Clyburn

and the heavily black Democrat electoral base against Bernie Sanders. And then, of course, he didn't run in 2024 because there was an incumbent, but he was very critical of Joe Biden for at least part of that race. And now he's out touring the country. The Bernie Sanders energy, Bernie's too old. He's not going to be the guy. But the Bernie Sanders energy is the insurgent energy inside the Democratic Party.

Because the insurgent energy inside the Democratic Party is not a sort of administrative liberalism that is effective in its approach. It is full-scale class warfare. DEI is played out. And so they're going back from race Marxism or sex Marxism back to like the original Marxism. This is the direction of the Democratic Party. This is where the energy is. And this is exactly what the Trump administration should be concerned about. Not in that Bernie Sanders and the AOC wing of the party are going to defeat Donald Trump.

But if the Trump administration fails, why the Trump administration has to be very, very good at what it does. If they fail, the next thing up on the Democratic side of the aisle is Bernie and whoever Bernie taps on the shoulder, because it's not going to be Bernie personally. So apparently over in Tempe, Arizona, tens of thousands of people showed up at a rally for Bernie Sanders. Now, again, big rallies are not a proxy for success. Mitt Romney held big rallies in 2012 and then lost to Barack Obama. But right now, Democrats can't draw flies.

Democrats are toxic. Bernie Sanders is going around and holding rallies and literally tens of thousands of people are showing up. He's an 83 year old lifelong useless leech on the ass of society. And tens of thousands of people are showing up to hear him and to hear AOC with whom he is campaigning. So here's Bernie in Tempe, Arizona. If we stand together, we can not only defeat Trumpism.

but we can create the kind of great nation we know that we can become. Thank you all very much. A packed house at Mullet Arena listened as Sanders and AOC underscored the need to come together and be united to fight against a Republican-controlled Congress and president. Okay, so again, this is sort of fight oligarchy.

There is a class of people who are running the country and they're evil and they're rich and we need to tear them down to the ground. It runs in direct opposition to exactly the sort of abundance Democrat mentality pushed by Ezra Klein or pushed by Derek Thompson. But it is the thing that Democrats are animated by. Originally, according to the Wall Street Journal, when visiting Omaha, Nebraska,

AOC and Bernie reserved a place that held 800 people. Then they had to move to a bigger venue of 3,400. And then when they went to Tempe, 15,000 people showed up. And Bernie said, this is insane. I'm not running for anything. People are outraged and they're frightened and they want to fight back. And this is one form of beginning the struggle to fight back. And it is not a coincidence that Bernie is tapping AOC on the shoulder. AOC, of course, has a very young, very woke, very socialistic contingency who follows her.

Sanders is taking a really interesting approach. Again, he's wrong and his perspective on capitalism is not just wrong. It happens to be evil, but it is an interesting approach. He's abandoning certain issues that are sort of tentpole Democrat issues right now. And he's focusing instead on pure class warfare, pure unbridled Eugene V. Debs class warfare. He's an old school wobbly Bernie Sanders.

So, for example, when it came to the border over the weekend, Bernie was interviewed and he said that Trump was actually right about the border. Now, this is a switch in time for Bernie. So if you remember all the way back to 2016, when he was running against Hillary Clinton, he actually talked about solidifying the border. Why? Because he understands, this is correct, that you cannot have both socialism and an open border. It doesn't work that way. So now he's reverting back to type. He's going back to a sort of protectionist socialism, which does involve actually closing the border. This is where the horseshoe theory comes all the way around for people like Bernie.

I mean, I think cracking down on fentanyl, making sure our borders are stronger. Look, nobody thinks illegal immigration is appropriate. And I happen to think we need comprehensive immigration reform. But I don't think that it's appropriate for people to be coming across the border illegally.

So again, that is Bernie saying that Trump is basically right on the border. Why? He's abandoning the worst issues for the Democrats. Immigration is a bad issue for Democrats. Bernie, he'll talk about trans, but only if forced to do so at point of gun. This is not a major issue for him. Instead, he rails against his own party, which again is the prereq to actually successfully running in the United States. He rails against his own party and he does pure, unbridled, kill the rich and eat them class warfare. So here he was railing against his own party.

Well, I would take us back even two years before that, before Trump was elected, and saying that it saddens me that when the Democrats had control of the Senate, they did virtually nothing for working people. I have to say that I'm a member of the Democratic caucus as an independent, so I'm not going to lie to you and tell you otherwise.

Okay, so again, of course, he has an interest in saying this. He is an independent from Vermont who has basically become a quote-unquote thought leader inside the Democratic Party because they have no thoughts. And so he is just pouring old school Marxism into the vessel of the Democratic Party. Here he was talking about the quote-unquote oligarchy. Now again,

Any actual definition of oligarchy would have to include Bernie Sanders in it. He's the most powerful people in the country. He's very wealthy. He obviously has that lake house. He has a big following. If you're talking about oligarchs in control of the levers of power and capable of controlling people's lives, Bernie should be near the top of that list. What he means by oligarchy is actually just very rich people, like people who have made money in private industry. He hates private industry. He hates private markets, Bernie.

Bernie is the kind of person who literally has said that private charity is bad because it crowds out government spending. I mean, you have to go pretty far afield to find people who literally hate people giving charity. Bernie has said himself that charity is bad. Private charity is wrong because it might make people feel as though they're actually doing something good when actually the government should be doing that thing. Bernie Sanders is the kind of person who praised bread lines at one point because there's bread at the lines.

Bernie Sanders is the type of person who has said there are too many types of toothpaste in the aisles at CVS. Why do you need that many types of toothpaste? He is like a full-scale tankie, meaning a communist sympathizer. There's a reason that this dude honeymooned in the USSR. Here he was going after the quote-unquote oligarchy with John Carl on ABC News.

I've been covering you for a long, long time. I've heard you railing against millionaires and billionaires for a long time. Hey, guess what? Is it different? Turns out a few other people are catching on to that, right? I have been talking for many years about this country moving toward an oligarchy. And I think anybody who is not dumb, deaf or blind is seeing precisely what is happening.

So, again, this is his shtick, and it is going to be the successful shtick. So then he was asked by Jonathan Karl about AOC, because it's clear that Bernie himself, he's 83 years old. By the time of the next presidential election, Bernie is going to be 86, 87 years old. So he ain't going to be the guy. So who is it that he's going to tap on the shoulder? There is a reason he's campaigning with AOC. So Jonathan Karl asked him about the possibility of AOC supplanting Chuck Schumer in the New York Senate.

She might want to run for the Senate, but the reality is that AOC has a better shot of being president than being senator from New York. There's a lot of internal politics in New York. Schumer has his hands on a lot of different levers in the state of New York. And Bernie threatens to walk out of the interview. Would you like to see her join in the Senate? Right now, we have, as I said, just a whole lot of people in the Congress. OK, Jonathan, thanks. Wait, I got one more. I got one more. This is important. Well, I ask you, OK, you know, you want to do nonsense, do nonsense. No.

I don't want to talk about inside the beltway stuff. I got 32,000 people. I was just asking you about AOC because she was out there. Fine, but I don't want to talk about this. What was the last question? I was just going to ask you one more question about you. I mean, that's all. I was literally your last... What is your question? Well, I mean, it's easier if you sit...

Unbelievable. So he's getting up and the reason he's getting up is because he knows that he's being asked to create a war inside the party. What he actually wants is for AOC to run for president. And so, by the way, does the Associated Press. Quote, Bernie Sanders stepped onto a stage in downtown Denver, surrounded by tens of thousands of cheering supporters in what he described as the biggest rally he had ever addressed. The Vermont senator put his hand on the shoulder of the woman who had introduced him, a signal for her to stay on stage.

Quote, she's become an inspiration to millions of young people, recounting her biography from a girl who helped her mother clean houses and later became a bartender before emerging as political insurgent who ousted a powerful New York Democrat in a U.S. House primary. Now, again, that is a very rosy picture of AOC's history. The truth is that she grew up pretty middle class in New York. Again, there's nothing wrong. Growing up middle class is great. But this kind of idea that she's a total rags to riches story, she went to Boston University. I mean, this is not somebody who grew up totally impoverished.

And then she ousted a powerful New York Democrat in a House primary that, yeah, I think she received 15,000 votes in that House primary. Yeah.

The crowd began a chant of her well-known moniker, AOC. In a leaderless Democratic Party out of power in Washington, Ocasio-Cortez has a message and a connection with a segment of liberals feeling disenchanted with both parties. Now in her fourth term, the 35-year-old congresswoman is working to broaden her appeal beyond her progressive anti-establishment roots. Hitting the road last week with Sanders for his fighting oligarchy rallies, she's addressing people who disagree with her and reframing the divide in the Democratic Party not as progressive versus moderate, but as those going after Republican President Donald Trump and those being more cautious.

She said, quote, no matter who you voted for in the past, no matter if you know all the right words to say, no matter your race, religion, gender identity, or status, no matter, even if you disagree with me on a few things, if you're willing to fight for someone you don't know, you are welcome here. So she is posing herself as against the establishment Democratic Party that is unwilling to face up to the challenges of President Trump, which is smart. It is. And the class warfare aspect of what Democrats are going to steer into, that is the next step. They're going to steer full scale into class warfare.

That is the reason why they are attacking Elon Musk as opposed to Trump. You've noticed a shift in fire from the Democrats from Trump to Musk. Part of that is because Trump is totally tough on. This has been true for a decade. President Trump, because he is made of mud, he is a mud monster. If you throw more mud on him, he just looks like a mud monster. You can't do anything to him. That's not true with regard to, for example, Elon Musk. Democrats think Democrats are ripping on Trump. They're ripping on Musk because they would love to steal your income. But

But did you know that your home could be stolen right from under you without you even realizing it? The FBI calls this house stealing. It's a growing scam targeting homeowners across America. Here's how it works. Scammers only need to forge your signature on one document, add a fake notary stamp, pay a small filing fee, and then submit it to your local recorder's office. Just like that, your home title gets transferred out of your name. Once they have control, they can take out loans against your equity or even sell your property behind your back. The worst part? You might not discover anything is wrong until collection notices or foreclosure warnings start showing up in your mailbox. So,

So when was the last time you checked your home title? If you're like most people, the answer is probably never. That's exactly what scammers count on. That's why so many people, including our own senior video editor, Adam, trust Home Title Lock. Their million-dollar triple lock protection helps keep your home and equity safe. Here's what you get. Immediate 24-7 monitoring of your property. Urgence alerts if there are any changes.

And if fraud should happen, their U.S.-based restoration team will spend up to a million bucks to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost. Here's the best part. I've teamed up with Home Title Lock to give you a free title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim and access to your personal title expert, a $250 value just for signing up. Go to hometitlelock.com, use my promo code Shapiro250 or click on the link in the description. Make sure to check out that million-dollar triple lock protection details when you get there. That's hometitlelock.com, promo code Shapiro250. You get protection and peace of mind. Also,

The result...

quicker onset of action, reducing the wait time typically associated with traditional pills. Plus, Tadalafil, the active ingredient in Cialis, lasts in the system for up to 36 hours. So, when the mood is right, you'll be ready without another dose. Find out if Prescription Rose Sparks is right for you. To get $15 off your first order, connect with a provider at

row.co slash ben that's r-o dot c-o slash ben for 15 bucks off your first order compounded drugs are permitted to be prescribed under federal law but are not fda approved do not undergo fda safety effectiveness or manufacturing review only available if prescribed after an online consultation with a provider row sparks could be a better option for you go check them out right now row.co slash ben that's r-o dot c-o slash ben for 15 bucks off your first order now

Elon is invulnerable in other ways. He's obviously too wealthy for them to threaten his livelihood. He doesn't seem to care very much what people think of him. So that is unlikely to stick to Musk personally. However, that's not the goal. The goal right now for Democrats is very simple. There's a reason they're using the word oligarchy. I don't think they're being stupid. I think it's actually quite smart. What they're attempting to do is craft a narrative of a group of people at the top of government in private industry and in the public sector who are working together to corrupt the system

Now, the comeback to that typically from the conservative side of the aisle is, well, if the economy is booming, what are you complaining about? Not that there's coordination and collusion, but of course business is going to support Republican administrations because Republican administrations remove all of the horrible regulations that have led to the downfall of cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Detroit.

Republicans get the obstacles out of the way of business, so business tends to support Republicans. This has been sort of a longstanding theme in American politics for decades. But the way that Democrats are playing it is that there's a sort of corporatist, slimy deal going on at the top of politics, the oligarchy.

air quotes, in which the Musks of the world are cooperating with the Trumps of the world so that Trump will put money in Musk's pocket and Musk will put money in Trump's pocket and they both go home happy and everybody else gets poor. That is the line. It's not true, but that is the line Democrats are going to use. The reason that's clever is because the way that people tend to filter politics

You and I, we sit here, we talk politics every day. And so if you listen to this show, you're a member of a tiny cadre in the American public who watches politics at a fairly granular level. You know the players, you know the general arguments. The vast majority of people in the United States have a picture of politics that is significantly less granular. All of us are right up close to the Seurat painting

Right. George Seurat is a famous impressionist who paints with dots. Right. Sunday in the Park with George is a musical based on the life of Seurat. If you ever go and you see his paintings, for example, the museum in Chicago, if you go and you look at his paintings, it's point. It's pointless. He's got a bunch of dots and it's like millions of dots. And then when you draw back, you see that it's a picture of something. People who watch politics closely are like people who are really, really close to a Seurat painting. You can see every single dot. You see every pixel.

Then you pull back and you see the whole picture. Most people are people who wander into the room with the Seurat painting. They see a bunch of people who are by a river and walking on a Sunday and they walk out of the room. It is not a granular view of politics. So if you see a picture of President Trump at the inauguration flanked by Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and Tim Cook,

and Neil Mohan and the rest of the, and Sundar Pichai and all the rest of these sort of tech CEOs. And they're all in a room together. And President Trump is next to them. These sort of bird's eye view, take half a moment and look at the TV and then move on with your day. View of that is, oh, these guys are friends and they must work together. And so what Democrats are banking on, what they are banking on

is a close coordination between private industry and the president, and then an economic fall. That is what they're banking on. And if there's an economic fall, AOC is poised right there, and so is Bernie. And let's be clear about what the threat level is. This is why the economy must succeed. People...

on the sort of Trump supportive side of the aisle. Maybe they're frustrated with the fact that I've been critical of President Trump's moves toward tariffs, what he's been doing with regard to Canada. The reason I've been saying that is because the greatest danger to the Trump administration success isn't economic downturn. Anything else can be overcome. An economic downturn gets attributed to the president who is the president when it happens, whether or not he deserves it. That's just the way it works. And so that is the great danger.

And it is great that this White House is very friendly toward business. That's a wonderful thing. But every image showing how friendly this White House is toward business becomes a weapon in the arsenal of people like AOC, who doesn't understand business, doesn't understand economics, hates the rich, truly does not like them, thinks that there's a moral quality that adheres to you as you gain wealth and makes you immoral and bad. It's a bizarre sort of Marxist presentiment.

That makes no sense, just on a moral level. I have been very not rich and I've been very rich. And I'm basically the same person all the way through. And that's true of pretty much everybody I know who was at one point not rich and then became rich. It turns out I know many people who are wonderful who are not rich. I know many people who are wonderful who are rich. I know many people who are awful who are rich. I know many people who are awful who are not rich. Wealth does not define character. But for people like AOC and Bernie, there's a very flattering view that they can present

to the vast majority of Americans, which is that if you are rich, it's because you suckered someone and did something wrong and did something corrupt and you're bad. That essentially participating in the capitalist system makes you morally inferior in some way. The richer you get, the worse you get. This is why Bernie will say billionaires should not exist. He doesn't just mean we should redistribute the wealth. He means there's something literally immoral in being a billionaire. Well, that's precisely the opposite of what President Trump is doing. But people tend to judge politics, again, based on that walking through the room, looking once at the painting, walking out.

And if they see closeness between the White House and various industrial capitalists who have done really well, tech bros who have done really well, and then the economy sinks, all of that is going to be tied to the ship. All of that is going to get tied into the sinking ship if this ship should sink, which is why the ship really needs not to sink.

As part of this, for example, over the weekend, it was reported that the White House, through an outside event production company called Harbinger, is soliciting corporate sponsors for this year's Easter Egg Roll, which is prompting major concerns from ethics experts in shock from former White House officials from both parties.

The sponsorship offers range from 75 grand to 200 grand, with the promise of logo and branding opportunities, according to a nine-page document sent to potential sponsors and obtained by CNN. The egg roll has long been privately funded without taxpayer dollars, largely through the American Egg Board, which also provides tens of thousands of eggs for the occasion. All the money raised by Harbinger will go to the White House Historical Association. But the solicitation of sponsorships marks an unprecedented offering of corporate branding opportunities on White House grounds running counter to long-established regulations prohibiting the use of public office

A former official said this is an enterprise, this is not your grandmother's Easter egg roll where people lined up outside the gate and go and roll an egg and get a little gift bag and walk out. The pitch document includes logos for both the White House and Harbinger, which previously produced the event during President Trump's first term and is offering initial planning and event day execution for sponsors that sign on. It features imagery of Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, members of the Trump family, the Easter Bunny and the White House press corps, including CNN correspondent Caitlin Collins.

The document says sponsors of the White House Easter egg roll provide financial support activities and giveaways to enhance the event while gaining valuable brand visibility and national recognition. So what does this mean? It means they can have naming rights for a key area or an element, a sponsor logo featured on event signage, custom branded baskets, snacks, beverages or souvenirs. Now, is any of this like truly awful? No. I mean, who cares?

So this idea, this is some sort of open bribery or something like that. It seems to me that if you're raising money for charity and people want a sponsorship opportunity attached, that's true for pretty much every private charitable enterprise I've ever associated with or seen. Go to, seriously, a charity dinner and you will see a bunch of corporate sponsors of the charity dinner. And that's where the money comes from. Is this a big deal? It isn't. Except that if the economy sinks, then Democrats are going to try to tie this to President Trump.

The same thing is true with regard to, for example, Tesla. So President Trump did a big presser, you'll recall a few weeks ago, on the lawn over at the White House where he talked about buying a Tesla. And this was ripped on by the members of the media, suggesting this is a form of corruption, this is Trump trying to prop up the Tesla stock or whatever. Well, the truth is that Joe Biden had done exactly the same thing with Stellantis. There's nothing really new here. But that's not the point. The point is the close cooperation, which I think is quite good, between Trump and President

people who are successful in business is going to be wrapped around the Republican Party's neck and capitalism's neck if the economy should shift south. That right there is the biggest problem that Trump, it's why we cannot afford either as a country or as a body politic

for this administration to economically downturn, because the next thing that comes is a horseshoe theory populism that takes capitalism and stomps its boot on it. What you're going to get the rise of is on the right, these sort of anti-capitalist populists. These people definitely exist. These people are actually an increasingly loud contingent of the Republican Party who believe that capitalism is evil, that business is bad, that capitalism takes away from home and hearth. This very live debate inside the right

And meanwhile, on the left, you are going to see the rise of the Bernie Sanders types. Bernie is well placed inside the party right now. And whomever he taps on the shoulder is quite likely at this point to be the nominee, particularly if that person can knit together some of the other aspects of the Democratic agenda. AOC is perfectly on brand when it comes to the wokeness. She obviously is very involved in standing up for DEI and all the rest. So she checks the boxes of the radical left on the woke side. But she is also reaching over not into that,

That's not how she's campaigning. She's campaigning as a full-scale Democratic socialist in the mold of Bernie Sanders. So I know, people laughed. I wrote a column back in 2008 when Barack Obama was first running for president before he received the nomination. And I said, beware, because the actual danger here is not Hillary Clinton. The actual danger here is Barack Obama. And I think it was in 2007, actually.

Well, it turns out that right now, the real danger is AOC. I'm just telling you right now, right here. We can laugh at her. I've been laughing at her for years. I think she's a ridiculous figure. I also think that she's talented on camera. I think that she speaks the slogans with passion. And I think that in the Democratic primary, she's a dangerous, dangerous candidate. Who's going to run against her and be able to overcome her? Because if you actually try to poo-poo AOC, if you try to say, well, she's dumb, which is true. If you try to say that she's dumb in a Democratic primary, you're going to be in trouble.

She's just going to say, well, did you oppose Trump sufficiently? Because the smarter people in the Democratic Party are biding their time, like Slotkin in Michigan. And if you say, well, you know, she's never done anything. She's going to say, well, I never got anything done because I was just too dedicated to the cause. And she'll have Bernie's support base and Bernie will transfer that support base over to her. She's a dangerous candidate inside the party, for sure, for sure. So do not do not take your eye off the ball there. And for the Trump administration,

Do not take your eye off the economic ball. That is the single most important thing that you can do is to calm the economic waters. It is deeply important. Right now, according to the Wall Street Journal, people are selling their stocks. They're starting to look elsewhere.

Just two months after JPMorgan Chase declared American exceptionalism the broad and dominant investing theme of 2025, ordinary investors across the world are looking elsewhere. Instead of riding the wave of U.S. outperformance, they are parsing the potential implications of tariff wars and major shifts in U.S. foreign policy. And for much of this volatile stretch, markets in China and Europe are outpacing expectations. These are things we do not need.

And much of this is being self-created. So unless somebody can spell out the long-term plan for how this helps the American economy, and by long-term, I really mean short to midterm, because again, the election is coming up fast. I know, we just finished one, but it is 2025. 2028's the election. It's not a lot of time.

If the idea is we got to undergo some economic pain in order to get economic gain, that better be some fairly short-term pains for some pretty long-term gain. If you hope that the successor to President Trump is going to win the White House. Well, meanwhile, speaking of controversies that could be a problem for the Trump administration. So President Trump right now is going up against an incredibly left-wing judiciary, particularly at the district court level. Apparently, today, there's supposed to be a hearing. The Trump administration has a hearing today.

With a three-member appeals panel to overturn a judgment from Judge James Boasberg, that was the temporary restraining order that blocked the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport plane loads of migrants without due process. And that's what the lawsuit suggested. Justice Department lawyers will demand that Boasberg be thrown off the case. This is according to Politico.

So, Josh Gerstein of Politico says this is a big test for Trump's team's in-your-face approach to all the litigation he now faces, coupling confrontational court filings with an all-out fusillade on both cable news and social media against judges who have blocked administration policies. Boasberg, of course, is not going to go along with it. I think it's very doubtful, by the way, that the appeals court goes along with Trump's attempt to get Boasberg thrown off the case, according to Politico.

There are two Republican appointees on this three-judge panel. One is a Trump appointee named Justin Walker. The second is a George W. Bush appointee named Karen Henderson. Josh Gerstein says, will they embrace Trump's expansive view of executive power, or will they show concern about what Boasberg has called the very frightening possibility of almost any migrant being rapidly expelled to a third country based solely on the say-so of the executive branch? Now,

It's not clear exactly what happens if the appellate court rules against Trump. Presumably, they will then appeal to the Supreme Court, and that's where this needs to go. What we really need at this point is a broad-scale understanding of what local district court judges are allowed to put TROs on and what they are not allowed to put TROs on, at least when it comes to national policy.

President Trump was asked about defying the judiciary. So the Democrats have been suggesting that Trump is just going to defy the judiciary and keep defying the judiciary and keep defying. Here's Trump yesterday basically making clear that that's not the case. He said the secretary of state is in charge of these deportations and determining who will be deported and who will not in many of these cases. And he's going to act in accordance with the law.

If there was a flight like tonight with these guys, even though it's still being litigated, if there was a flight tonight full of accused gang members and somebody called and said, Mr. President, I know that this is still being adjudicated, but we can get these guys down to El Salvador right now. Would you say that that's OK? I would say that I'd have the secretary of state handle it because I'm not really involved in that.

So, again, that is him deferring to the secretary of state. Marco Rubio is not going to just willy nilly ignore the law. This idea there's a constitutional crisis going on. If there is, it is, in fact, a creation of overreaching district court judges. But it's not a constitutional crisis. It's going to go to the Supreme Court. There is no evidence whatsoever at this point that the Trump team is going to ignore orders from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Meanwhile, these justices and these judges at the low level are many of them are just not utterly radical, totally crazy. For example, just last week,

U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes issued another sweeping injunction against banning trans volunteers and current service members from serving in the military and wrote a 75-page decision, quote,

Well, Pete Hegseth, the excellent secretary of defense, then immediately tweeted back, quote, since Judge Reyes is now a top military planner, she, they can report to Fort Benning at 0600 to instruct our army rangers on how to execute high value target raids. After that, Commander Reyes can dispatch to Fort Bragg to train our green berets on counterinsurgency warfare.

I mean, that is right. And again, that judgment will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Right now, what we need is for the Supreme Court to stop mouthing off about President Trump mouthing off about district judges and actually sign into chat. When is Justice Roberts going to allow the Supreme Court to take up the question of what are district court judges allowed to do in terms of these gigantic temporary restraining orders that stop in their tracks any national policy? And again, all the talk right now about how

Republicans are going to run roughshod over the rule of law. It's just not true. So President Trump has been saying we need to impeach these judge these federal judges. They're not getting impeached. Senator John Curtis of Utah says, listen, President Trump can say whatever he wants. It takes two thirds of the Senate to impeach and that's not going to happen. I hope every high school civics teacher and every high school student is paying attention because we're having a lesson in civics. It's not crisis. It's civics.

And our founders created a system where there was these were these tugs and pulls between the three branches. And it's messy sometimes. But that's the beauty of the Constitution. And, you know, you can talk impeachment and you can throw it out there. That's that's what you can do. But the reality of it is it takes two thirds of the Senate to impeach. We know that's not going to happen. OK, so he's right about that again. So many of the things that Trump says on Truth Social, it's been it's been a long time.

article of faith in the Trump supportive community that you take President Trump seriously, but not literally. And that's right. When President Trump is ranting about these district court judges and when he's saying we're going to impeach them, that's not going to happen. There's a process for that thing. And when President Trump suggests that he's going to defy court orders, again, there's very little evidence that President Trump is actually going to defy court orders once we know what the actual authority of these district court judges is.

Are you looking for a better quality meat? Good Ranchers delivers 100% American beef, chicken, and wild-caught seafood straight to your door. Every cut is steakhouse grade with no antibiotics or hormones. Subscribe now using code DAILYWIRE to get your free bacon, ground beef, seed oil-free chicken nuggets, or salmon in every order for an entire year, plus $40 off. That's goodranchers.com, promo code DAILYWIRE. Good Ranchers, American meat delivered.

Okay, meanwhile, in cultural news, Snow White, there's been an enormous amount of controversy surrounding Snow White, obviously, because of everything from the original decisions with regard to casting to the insane, hardcore, nasty leftism of Rachel Zegler attacking her own co-star for being Israeli and generally attacking men and suggesting that Snow White was a sexist story and all this.

Controversy has been dogging this movie since the very beginning. So much so that the Daily Wire, I think we played a major role in basically forcing Disney to go reshoot it. Well, it didn't help, apparently. Disney's Snow White was essentially a box office dud. Early estimates suggested that they would take in $48 to $58 million in the first weekend. Apparently, it did $43 million in its first weekend. It cost $270 million to make. $270 million. $270 million.

Obviously, it was going to win the box office. It's the biggest movie at the box office this weekend. But, for example, Disney's Cinderella, which for my money is still the only good live-action Disney remake, mainly because it was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who actually is a terrific director. That one did $91.8 million in its opening weekend against a $138 million budget. Both figures adjusted for inflation. But this live-action remake is a giant fail. It is not doing well at the box office.

When it comes to the Rotten Tomatoes score on this thing, even the critics are not in love with Disney's Snow White. It's clocking in at 44%. The cinema score, which is basically how audiences respond to the film, is a B+, which generally is not terrible, but it actually is quite terrible with regard to kids' films. Kids' films are graded on a curve. There has never been a Disney live-action remake that is graded lower than an A-, except for Snow White.

It turns out that Americans are not in love with the politics of Disney. I think this is the last gasp of old Disney. And when I say old Disney, I mean sort of the regime that decided that wokeness needed to be infused in every movie. If they keep going along this path, they're going to go bankrupt.

They really are gonna be in serious, serious trouble. They can't keep churning out trash IP based on some of the greatest IP ever created and hope that audiences are gonna keep showing up at the box office. Well, folks, in order to determine just how badly Snow White is doing at the box office, I asked my friend Perplexity,

one of our sponsors of the show, about which Disney films actually have done the best at the box office in terms of live action remakes adjusted for inflation versus the budget. And here is what my friend Perplexity says. Disney's live action remakes have generally performed well at the box office with several earning over a billion dollars worldwide. The Lion King of 2019 had box office $1.663 billion. The original budget was $260 million. Adjusted for inflation, you're talking about $310 million. So the return on investment was like 5.3x.

Beauty and the Beast, almost 4X, made $1.264 billion at the box office. The adjusted budget, which I assume includes production, advertising, all the rest, $321 million. Aladdin did really well at the box office at almost 5X. $1 billion at the box office, adjusted budget, $218 million. Jungle Book did well as well, and Cinderella. Now, you'll notice that the years that these did well are all prior to the pandemic.

Cinderella was 2015, Jungle Book was 2016, Aladdin was 2019, Beauty and the Beast was 2017, and Lion King was 2019. Then the pandemic happened. And once the pandemic happened, people actually had to have a reason to go to the box office. And this is when the fail began for Disney. Mulan had a $231 million adjusted budget. It made $70 million at the box office. Now, again, part of that is because it was released at Disney+.

Pinocchio, same deal. Production budget, $164 million, $0 at the box office because, of course, it debuted on Disney+. Dumbo, live-action remake, made in 2019. That one did poorly because they also had Tim Burton direct it, which is a very bizarre directorial choice for a kids' movie. Tim Burton is very scary.

Snow White, however, is the worst performing of any of these except for, you can count Mulan, but Mulan was in the middle of a pandemic. Right now, Snow White is the worst performing of these live action remakes so far in history. Now, it's not going to stop at $87.3 million global box office. That's where it is right now. Its adjusted budget is $270 million worldwide.

Eventually, it'll end up earning maybe its budget, maybe, maybe it makes back like its original money. Certainly not if you include all of the advertising that was put behind it, all the press and the rest. It's going to be a gigantic box office failure. But the trend that you're noticing,

is that the worst performing of the Disney movies in terms of live action remakes are basically everything in the last five years. And that is a combination of wokeness and the pandemic. And now you better have a good reason to get people to the theaters. And this ain't it. The movie apparently is not very good. I haven't seen it yet. I would be shocked if it were. Again, the star, Rachel Zegler, is unbelievably charmless in public.

Studios really need to go back to what they originally did, which was tell your stars to shut up and not say things because no one is paying to hear your star say offensive things off the screen. It's quite foolish. There's one area, by the way, where Tom Cruise has got it exactly right. One of the reasons he's still America's most iconic movie star well into his 60s is because Tom Cruise, you just don't see him anymore when he is not on the big screen. He's just that character on the big screen.

which means that you can just take him or leave him on the big screen. That is the smart way to approach this stuff. Hollywood needs to go back to it. And meanwhile, big controversy has now broken out as well over cuts to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. Okay, SNAP is basically food stamps. And all across the country, under pressure from the Health and Human Services Department under Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,

There's been a push to cut off the use of SNAP for candy and soda and junk food, which is a smart move. There's no reason. If SNAP is designed to provide nutritional supplement to kids particularly or poor families, then why exactly are we supplementing with the most unhealthy stuff in American life? We already have a massive childhood obesity problem in this country. The problem in the United States right now, by the way, when it comes to things like obesity, is that if you were to create a curve

of obesity versus health, it actually reverses the historical curve. The historical curve would have been that people at the top of the income pyramid were the most overweight, right? They were the most obese. If you go back to ancient societies, and then if you move to now, actually it's the reverse.

Right now, the problem with the health of people who make less money in the United States is not about them being undernourished in terms of not getting enough caloric intake. It's actually too much caloric intake. And that comes along with an enormous number of other health problems. So why exactly should the American taxpayers subsidize people eating unhealthy junk? And yet somehow this has turned into a massive controversy. There are some right-wing influencers who are suggesting that this is very bad, that somehow there has to be some right for people to use Snap to buy a Snickers.

I don't know under what rubric of conservatism that falls. I can hear a libertarian conservatism that suggests that you shouldn't pay for anybody's food stamps to begin with. That's a libertarian conservatism that suggests that private charity should fill the gap or whatever. You could be a sort of social conservative who believes that government should, at some baseline level, care for people who are the most impoverished, but they should not subsidize

them fattening themselves in the most unhealthy ways. That I could hear. I don't know what kind of conservatism says you owe somebody a Snickers. I don't understand what that is. But apparently, that is in fact a controversy. Kennedy is right about this, obviously. The amount of clinical obesity in the country is extraordinary.

It is crippling the American healthcare system. If you look at the sort of life outcomes, the health outcomes of Americans right now, one of the reasons we lag behind many of the other places on earth, ranging from Japan to certain countries in Europe, one of the reasons for that is because we are inordinately fat. We are a very unhealthy country before you ever hit the medical system.

Many of the so-called failings of the medical system are not failings of the American medical system. They're failings of the American nutritional system. This is something that RFK Jr. is absolutely right on. Now, where RFK Jr. is sort of half right and half wrong is over the weekend, RFK Jr. suggested that we should ban cell phones from schools, which is right. We should not have kids on iPhones at their schools. That's right. The reason that he cited was because of electric radiation effects on the human body.

which let's just say the evidence for that is scanty at best. So there've been some jokes online about the idea that perhaps this will be the pattern here is that RFK Jr. recommends good policy based on bad premises. That basically RFK Jr. is going to be saying that you should not

eat too many trans fats because the aliens might get you or something. Like it's good policy, but it's not exactly based on the best available science. Alrighty guys, coming up, fascinating piece in the Wall Street Journal about American women abandoning marriage. We'll get into that in detail. First, you have to become a Daily Wire Plus member. Why? Because there's so much good stuff.

We're going to be adding, I mean, first of all, this show continues. So if you like this show and you want more of the show every single day, you need to be a Daily Wire Plus member. There's that. But beyond that, we also have Backstage Live, Morning Wire, Matt Walsh's Movies Am I Racist, What Is a Woman, Run, Hide, Fight. We have All Access Live, all sorts of great stuff. The only way you get the thing you want, which is more of my show, of course, is to join Daily Wire Plus. If you're not a member, become a member. Use code Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.